We sought to cross validate several metrics for quality of glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and hyperglycemia.
Research Design and Methods:
We analyzed the mathematical properties of several metrics for overall glycemic control, and for hypo- and hyperglycemia, to evaluate their similarities, differences, and interrelationships. We used linear regression to describe interrelationships and examined correlations between metrics within three conceptual groups.
Results:
There were consistently high correlations between %Time in range (%TIR) and previously described risk indices (M100, Blood Glucose Risk Index [BGRI], Glycemic Risk Assessment Diabetes Equation [GRADE], Index of Glycemic Control [IGC]), and with J-Index (J). There were also high correlations among %Hypoglycemia, Low Blood Glucose Index (LBGI), percentage of GRADE attributable to hypoglycemia (GRADE%Hypoglycemia), and Hypoglycemia Index, but negligible correlation with J. There were high correlations of percentage of time in hyperglycemic range (%Hyperglycemia) with High Blood Glucose Index (HBGI), percentage of GRADE attributable to hyperglycemia (GRADE%Hyperglycemia), Hyperglycemia Index, and J. %TIR is highly negatively correlated with %Hyperglycemia but very weakly correlated with %Hypoglycemia. By adjusting the parameters used in IGC, Hypoglycemia Index, Hyperglycemia Index, or in MR, one can more closely approximate the properties of BGRI, LBGI, or HBGI, and of GRADE, GRADE%Hypoglycemia, or GRADE%Hyperglycemia.
Conclusions:
Simple readily understandable criteria such as %TIR, %Hypoglycemia, and %Hyperglycemia are highly correlated with and appear to be as informative as “risk indices.” The J-Index is sensitive to hyperglycemia but insensitive to hypoglycemia.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MaahsDM, BuckinghamBA, CastleJR, et al.: Outcome measures for artificial pancreas clinical trials: a consensus report. Diabetes Care, 2016; 39:1175–1179.
2.
SchlichtkrullJ, MunckO, JersildM: The M-valve, an index of blood-sugar control in diabetics. Acta Med Scand, 1965; 177:95–102.
3.
SchlichtkrullJ, MunckO, JersildM: Insulin rapitard and insulin actrapid. Acta Med Scand, 1965; 177:103–113.
KovatchevBP: Metrics for glycaemic control—from HbA1c to continuous glucose monitoring. Nat Rev Endocrinol, 2017; 13:425–436.
6.
HillNR, HindmarshPC, StevensRJ, et al.: A method for assessing quality of control from glucose profiles. Diabet Med, 2007; 24:753–758.
7.
HillNR, ThompsonB, BruceJ, et al.: Glycaemic risk assessment in children and young people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med, 2009; 26:740–743.
8.
HillNR, OliverNS, ChoudharyP, et al.: Normal reference range for mean tissue glucose and glycemic variability derived from continuous glucose monitoring for subjects without diabetes in different ethnic groups. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011; 13:921–928.
9.
RodbardD: Improved methods for calculating a “figure of merit” for blood glucose monitoring data. Diabetes Technology Society. Diabetes Technology Meeting. Philadelphia, PA. 2005. Abstract A126. Abstract Booklet, p. 129.
10.
RodbardD: Interpretation of continuous glucose monitoring data: glycemic variability and quality of glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11Suppl. 1:S55–S67.
11.
RodbardD: New and improved methods to characterize glycemic variability using continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:551–565.
12.
RodbardD: A semilogarithmic scale for glucose provides a balanced view of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3:1395–1401.
13.
WójcickiJM: “J”-index. A new proposition of the assessment of current glucose control in diabetic patients. Horm Metab Res, 1995; 27:41–42.
14.
WójcickiJM: Mathematical descriptions of the glucose control in diabetes therapy. Analysis of the Schlichtkrull “M”-value. Horm Metab Res, 1995; 27:1–5.
15.
DesboroughL, PalermCC, KaufmanF: Characterization of a populations' blood glucose distribution and its correlation with metrics assessing quality of glycemic control. Fourth International Conference on Advanced Technologies and Treatments for Diabetes, London, February 16–19, 2011.
16.
CameronFMC: Explicitly Minimizing Clinical Risk through Closed-loop Control of Blood Glucose in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. A dissertation submitted to the department of aeronautics and astronautics and the committee on graduate studies of Stanford University. p. 171. August 2010. (cf. p. 63, Figure 18: blood glucose risk profiles). (p. 62, Equations 17, 18). https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:jf647rq8653/Thesis-augmented.pdf
17.
CoxDJ, KovatchevBP, JulianDM, et al.: Frequency of severe hypoglycemia in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus can be predicted from self-monitoring blood glucose data. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1994; 79:1659–1662.
18.
KovatchevBP, CoxDJ, Gonder-FrederickLA, ClarkeW: Symmetrization of the blood glucose measurement scale and its applications. Diabetes Care, 1997; 20:1655–1658.
19.
KovatchevBP, CoxDJ, Gonder-FrederickLA, et al.: Assessment of risk for severe hypoglycemia among adults with IDDM: validation of the low blood glucose index. Diabetes Care, 1998; 21:1870–1875.
20.
KovatchevBP, CoxDJ, FarhyLS, et al.: Episodes of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes are preceded and followed within 48 hours by measurable disturbances in blood glucose. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2000; 85:4287–4292.
21.
KovatchevB, UmpierrezG, DiGenioA, et al.: Sensitivity of traditional and risk-based glycemic variability measures to the effect of glucose-lowering treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015; 9:1227–1235.
22.
InzucchiSE, UmpierrezG, DiGenioA, et al.: How well do glucose variability measures predict patient glycaemic outcomes during treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes?. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2015; 110:234–240.
23.
BeckRW, CalhounP, KollmanC: Use of continuous glucose monitoring as an outcome measure in clinical trials. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2012; 14:1–6.
24.
PernickNL, RodbardD: Personal computer programs to assist with self-monitoring of blood glucose and self-adjustment of insulin dosage. Diabetes Care, 1986; 9:61–69.
25.
RodbardD, BergerM, PernickN: Computer, networking, and information systems to facilitate delivery of health care to patients with diabetes. In: BabaS, KanekoT, eds. Diabetes, 1994, Proceedings of the 15th International Diabetes Federation Congress, Kobe, 6–11, November 1994. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995, pp. 800–803.
26.
RodbardD: Display of glucose distributions by date, time of day, and day of week: new and improved methods. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3:1388–1394.
27.
RodbardD: New approaches to display of self-monitoring of blood glucose data. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3:1121–1127.
28.
BergenstalRM, AhmannAJ, BaileyT, et al.: Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the ambulatory glucose profile. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2013; 15:198–211.
29.
AugsteinP, HeinkeP, VogtL, et al.: Q-Score: development of a new metric for continuous glucose monitoring that enables stratification of antihyperglycaemic therapies. BMC Endocr Disord, 2015; 1;15:22.
30.
ThomasA, SchönauerM, AchermannF, et al.: The “glucose pentagon”: assessing glycemic control of patients with diabetes mellitus by a model integrating different parameters from glucose profiles. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:399–409.
31.
ThomasA, HeinemannL: Prediction of the risk to develop diabetes-related late complications by means of the glucose pentagon model: analysis of data from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring study. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2012; 6:572–580.
32.
VigerskyRA, ShinJ, JiangB, et al.: The comprehensive glucose pentagon: A glucose-centric composite metric for assessing glycemic control in persons with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12:114–123.
33.
ThomasA, ShinJ, JiangB, et al.: the development of new composite metrics for the comprehensive analytic and visual assessment of hypoglycemia using the hypo-triad. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12:69–75.
34.
VigerskyRA: Escaping the hemoglobin a1c-centric world in evaluating diabetes mellitus interventions. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015; 9:1148–1151.
35.
HirschIB, BaloAK, SayerK, et al.: A simple composite metric for the assessment of glycemic status from continuous glucose monitoring data: implications for clinical practice and the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19(S3):S38–S48.
36.
PeyserTA, BaloAK, BuckinghamBA, et al.: Glycemic variability percentage: a novel method for assessing glycemic variability from continuous glucose monitor data. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:6–16.
37.
MarlingCR, ShubrookJH, VernierSJ, et al.: Characterizing blood glucose variability using new metrics with continuous glucose monitoring data. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2011; 5:871–878.
38.
DeVriesJH: Glucose variability: where it is important and how to measure it. Diabetes, 2013; 62:1405–1408.
39.
KohnertKD, HeinkeP, VogtL, et al.: Associations of blood glucose dynamics with antihyperglycemic treatment and glycemic variability in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. J Endocrinol Invest, 2017; 40:1201–1207.
40.
StrangeP, ShiL, NillerNF. Glucose energy spectrum as a function of dysglycemic progression. Abstract/Poster 268. European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Annual Meeting, Lisbon, Portugal, September 2017. Diabetologia.
41.
FicoG, HernándezL, CancelaJ, et al.: Exploring the frequency domain of continuous glucose monitoring signals to improve characterization of glucose variability and of diabetic profiles. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2017; 11:773–779.
42.
GarciaA, BaloAK, BuckinghamBA, et al.: Application of glycemic variability percentage: implications for continuous glucose monitor utilization and analysis of artificial pancreas data. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:699–706.
43.
RodbardD: Clinical interpretation of indices of quality of glycemic control and glycemic variability. Postgrad Med, 2011; 123:107–118.
44.
GargS, ZisserH, SchwartzS, et al.: Improvement in glycemic excursions with a transcutaneous, real-time continuous glucose sensor: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:44–50.
45.
RodbardD, BaileyT, JovanovicL, et al.: Improved quality of glycemic control and reduced glycemic variability with use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:717–723.
46.
RodbardD, JovanovicL, GargSK: Responses to continuous glucose monitoring in subjects with type 1 diabetes using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or multiple daily injections. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:757–765.
47.
FabrisC, FacchinettiA, SparacinoG, et al.: Glucose variability indices in type 1 diabetes: parsimonious set of indices revealed by sparse principal component analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2014; 16:644–652.
48.
FabrisC, FacchinettiA, FicoG, et al.: Parsimonious description of glucose variability in type 2 diabetes by sparse principal component analysis. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015; 10:119–124.
49.
El-LaboudiAH, GodslandIF, JohnstonDG, OliverNS: Measures of glycemic variability in type 1 diabetes and the effect of real-time continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18:806–812.
50.
BeckRW, XingD, GilliamL, et al.; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group: Sustained benefit of continuous glucose monitoring on A1C, glucose profiles, and hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2009; 32:2047–2049.
51.
BrossID: How to use RIDIT analysis. Biometrics, 1958; 14:18–38.
52.
FabrisC, PatekSD, BretonMD: Are risk indices derived from CGM interchangeable with SMBG-based indices?. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015, 14; 10:50–59.
53.
RodbardD: Evaluating quality of glycemic control: graphical displays of hypo- and hyperglycemia, time in target range, and mean glucose. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015; 9:56–62.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
